volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@jackiegardina except that Democratic members have shown that they'd rather shut the House down than work with moderate GOP members to elect a moderate.

So no, Democratic cooperation seems off the table.

Yes, I find that distasteful, but that's who we elected.

@luv_wins

If your comment had nothing to do with the rules then it misses that this whole moment has everything to do with the rules.

Everything about this situation centers around the rules of the House. The entire reason they need to vote is because the rules demand it.

If you're overlooking the rules of the House when making your stance then you're ignoring the core issue of what's happening.
@jackiegardina

@mathaetaes yes, big difference.

If the politician isn't actually going to help then it doesn't really matter whether we vote for them.

It has little to do with the hungry child. It's really about the ineffective politician.

@oblomov eh, I figure the conversation ended long ago. It was never much of a conversation in the first place.

You have your assumptions that you're clinging to regardless of the facts. It's hard to have any real conversation against such expressions of faith.

The facts aren't on your side, but meh, you'll stick to your convictions.

@Andre_98 what intentions are those, specifically?

I think it's funny how for a year and a half we've had people speculating about intentions that never came to pass.

@oblomov

@jackiegardina You have it backwards.

Cheney, Kinzinger, and Lurie lost their elections because they acted counter to what their constituents wanted.

If we're talking about democracy, these three acted in undemocratic ways, and democracy called them out on it, booting them from their positions.

@oblomov OF COURSE there's reason to post on Twitter anymore.

I could list off a few reasons, but at this point it's at least reason that we want better content going around the social media, and Twitter is in fact social media.

It's just downright stupid to say that using Twitter to reach the public is endorsement of fascist behavior.

And yeah, I'm using very straight language when I say that, because it's not worth being diplomatic there. The claim that it is endorsing fascism to use Twitter is just stupid.

@luv_wins

Really? No, it takes just a simple understanding of civics and the rules of the House to understand it.

Doesn't take anything MAGA.

@jackiegardina

@jackiegardina Well yes because that's how the chamber works.

You can't pass any legislation without a speaker, and thanks to Democrats' votes this jerk has become the most likely way forward to getting one, and to getting such legislation passed.

Sure, would be nice if Democrats hadn't sided with conservative extremists to put us in this situation, but they did. Write your representative if you don't like that, but here we are.

@oblomov I mean, I would suggest that quality posters need to stay there to keep making sure there are quality posts on the site.

Build up, don't tear down.

It's really silly to see people simultaneously quality posters to leave and then complaining that all the quality posters have left.

@KimPerales yeah, that'll do it.

@wjmaggos It is literally impossible not to have an algorithm. Even chronological is an algorithm. In this place it's not only an algorithm involving chronology but also the feeds that go to different instances.

So yeah, original Twitter had an algorithm.

But I also don't think original Twitter was as great for news as you think. All of the boosting under such a system just skews reporting toward confirmation bias, which I don't think is great for news.

@natural20 you say "Force sensitive person" but it's a big thing that Ahsoka seemed to undermine that by saying that everyone was force sensitive.

That was a big issue I had with the series.

@wjmaggos why?

Different people find different things interesting, and that's a good thing!

@wjmaggos so you see the funniness in the phrase that breaking news will get more boosts eventually? 🙂

@chrisgeidner you say this is "honestly very confusing" but I don't find it confusing at all, honestly.

I don't think it's properly described as a fake majority opinion. A *rejected* majority opinion, sure, but the judge's point that he was including it in the interest of time with express note that it wasn't taken up is pretty understandable and reasonable.

So I think this situation was clear, and I'm not sure why you think it's so hard to understand.

@wjmaggos well it's tricky because with so many hostile to algorithms other than chronological sorting, it's hard to prioritize real breaking news ahead of someone complaining about the lack of RT function, or someone wishing the world a good morning for some reason.

@watson@freeatlantis.com I mean, my instinct is that you're spinning a really kooky conspiracy theory with no bearing on reality...

@rwg this is really interesting, and I hope you're taking an objective, historical approach to the work.

You know, this is what happened, and it's an interesting tale of human dynamics, conflicting interests, maybe some game theory, and it can teach lessons for other projects.

I wouldn't want the work to veer into assuming the outcome was better or worse than counterfactuals. There are serious criticisms of AP, and the link touched on some issues with outcomes.

So rather than praising or criticizing, it strikes me that this is important for the lessons it can teach regardless of how it worked out.